Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to accelerate the increase in the refundability of the child tax credit, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 794 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman

from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 794 is a customary rule providing for consideration of the conference report on H.R. 1308, the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The rule also provides the conference report will be considered as read.

Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to head home to our districts for the weekend, there are two things that I look forward to telling my constituents that this Congress accomplished today: Cutting taxes and creating jobs. They are two of the most important things we can do for the hard-working people who sent us here to represent them.

We all know the unfortunate hits America's economy has suffered over the past several years. But through the strength of this administration and the will of this Congress, we have made great strides in recovering from horrific terrorist attacks, corporate scandals and a recession.

Time and time again, this Congress has responded to adversity with sound economic policies that continue to grow our economy. Thanks to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Act, we have given taxpayers in my district and all across America greater control over their hard-earned dollars.

Not only does this provide greater motivation for savings and investment, but it also protects and creates jobs. The Working Families Tax Relief Act before us today is yet another step in our plan to create a fair and reasonable tax system for hard-working Americans and continue the path of new job creation.

In March of 2003, this House passed our original version of the bill by a voice vote under suspension of the rules. In June of that same year we passed the bill for a second time.

Mr. Speaker, in the 18 months that we have been debating this bill, our constituents have waited patiently for the tax relief they deserve. Today, that long wait ends.

The underlying conference report includes much of the previous House passed language, providing more and longer lasting benefits for families of all income levels.

It extends the child tax credit of $1,000 per eligible child that is currently scheduled to sunset in 2005. The conference report makes this a meaningful credit available through 2010.

Important tax relief for married couples is also extended in the conference report. The House voted overwhelmingly in April of this year to make marriage penalty relief permanent, and we have yet another opportunity today to do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, the conference report also expands the 10 percent bracket originally created in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, and which overwhelmingly passed this House once again just over 4 months ago. This provision means substantial tax relief for low-income workers by taxing the first $14,000 of earnings for married couples and the first $7,000 for single taxpayers at a 10 percent rate instead of a 15 percent rate.

Without extensions of the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief and the expansion of the 10 percent bracket, working families would face a $109 billion tax increase over the next 10 years. This House simply cannot delay and must pass this measure in order to remove these excess tax burdens from our hard-working families.

Mr. Speaker, the report additionally provides the middle class with relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax, the AMT. While the calculation for the AMT is quite complicated, the negative result is simple to understand: It is an extra tax some have to pay on top of their regular income tax.

Originally conceived to prevent those with a very higher income from abusing tax benefits to unfairly reduce or eliminate their tax liability, the AMT has unintentionally ensnared millions of middle- class taxpayers. In May of this year, the AMT tax exemption was widely supported in this House on a bipartisan basis. Without this much needed extension, more middle income families will be pushed into the AMT, resulting in a tax hike of $23 billion in the next 10 years.

The conference report also continues to honor our servicemen and women in combat zones with nearly $200 million in tax assistance through the inclusion of tax-free combat pay when calculating their refundable child credit and an increase in the Earned Income Credit.

Our brave men and women in uniform continue to defend the freedoms this Nation holds dear, and every day they work to protect us from those who would do us harm. They do not just deserve our thanks and appreciation, they deserve this sensible assistance for their hard work and sacrifice.

The conference report further provides that the tax-exempt status of an organization is automatically suspended during any period in which the organization is designated as a terrorist organization or is listed in or designated by an executive order as supporting terrorism.

Mr. Speaker, also included in the underlying conference report is a 1-year extension of over 20 various expiring tax provisions, including the research and development tax credit, which is so important to business across the country.

In all, $13 billion of needed tax relief is provided for with these extensions.

Of particular importance to my home State of New York is the expansion of authority to issue advance refunding of Liberty Zone bonds through 2009. The Liberty Zone bond financing was intended to encourage the commercial revitalization of Lower Manhattan, and in particular, the World Trade Center site following the devastating attacks of September 11.

Currently scheduled to expire this December, I am pleased this conference report recognized the importance of the program and has included this much-needed extension.

Mr. Speaker, a yes vote today seizes on the momentum we have created towards a strong economy and job creation and sends a clear message that this Congress supports putting real dollars back where they belong, into the hands of hard-working men and women. A no vote simply prevents us this needed relief from becoming reality and denies our constituency the assistance they deserve.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule and the underlying conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, in listening to the gentlewoman's remarks on the general preliminary estimates that were there, as I understand it, that is what is published before the legislation is passed. Also, for the Record, I would like to have the final, which was prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is on their website for the Members who may not be in the chamber now if they choose to use it, but I would like to have this inserted into the Record as the final numbers.

Also, as I have listened to some of the aspects about this bill, both in the previous rule and now, that it is not paid for, I think there are a couple of things that also need to be on record. This bill prevents a tax increase on families, and it is very clear, if we do nothing, that taxes will go up, and so, actually, we are preventing that. Secondly, the relief that is provided for in the President's budget which holds the line on spending, it cuts the deficit in half over 5 years. The recent data from the Treasury Department show we are on track to meeting the President's budget goals. Finally, the Treasury data shows that tax receipts are increasing, despite the President's tax relief, proof that tax relief leads to economic growth.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23SE04.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23SE04.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23SE04.009

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We are getting into some of the theatrics of politics 40 days before an election. I accept that. But I also want to say that before Joe Scarborough was elected in 1994, in the time he served, it was the failed liberal policies of 40 years that knew tax and spend, in this House and allowed the policy that started in 1995 which was to stop a train wreck, and also begin to move forward in recovering from the largest tax increase in American history in 1993.

Now, what I also find ironic, the Democratic leadership of the House never listened to Joe Scarborough when he was a Member but might choose to now that he is a pundit and an author.

But the fact is, as we look at this legislation on the underlying bill, as we consider this rule today, this rule prevents a tax increase on families, middle-class American families that the politics of America has been addressing day in and day out while the 2004 election is underway. If you do not vote for

it, you begin to threaten the aspect that middle America will have a tax increase.

This relief is provided for in the President's budget, which holds the line on spending and cuts the deficit in half over 5 years. Recent data from the Treasury Department shows we can and we are on track in meeting the President's budget goals. The Treasury data shows that tax receipts are increasing, despite the President's tax relief, proof that tax relief leads to economic growth.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Joint Economic Committee United States Congress Report, in their summary it clearly says in there that raising taxes to cover budget deficits is usually a bad idea because it reduces incentives to work, save and invest.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Well, there they go again. Let us have a plan where we will sell a loaf of bread that says we will cut middle class taxes, but then again, I do not really have a plan on how to do it.

I have been in the majority before getting here and serving in the majority since the day I got here, but that majority of the previous 40 years has nicely gotten trenched into the minority because they have a lot of rhetoric but they have not put forth a plan as to how to get the job done.

So when you look at this, the Democrats have agreed to extending child tax credit, the 10 percent tax bracket, the marriage penalty relief, however, to accomplish the offsets they want, it means they have to come up with $130 billion of either tax hikes or spending cuts. The Democrats are not prepared to make that tough choice regarding which taxes to increase or which programs to cut. They want to come up and say, I am for cutting the middle class tax, but then again, I do not see this, I do not see that, BBA, debt, but there is never a solution.

So the Democrats' plan is a zero sum game here, it provides tax relief with one hand and takes it away with the other. So the Members who should vote no on this rule are the ones not interested in helping millions of American families that deserve tax relief.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we are getting down into election year, and I am so used to the other side of the aisle using class warfare, more importantly, I guess the American people are, that it is totally false, the information coming out here.

The information is false. The bill does not increase taxes on anyone. It actually increases the refundability of the child tax credit for low income families; $23 billion comes back to low income working families to help them, and they do not pay income tax in the category that is the outlay.

So, in other words, low income families who pay no income tax at all still will receive an additional $23 billion in the bill.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is an election year. Prior to 2001, the child credit was refundable only for those families with three or more children. This President, under 2001 tax relief, made all families with children eligible for the refundable child credit.

The size of the refundable credit is based on the family's earned income in excess of $10,000, which is indexed for inflation; and what I am seeing from the other side of the aisle is argument that the $10,000 limit should not be indexed for inflation so that families can receive a bigger check from the government. Ironically, they did not make this argument in 2001 when the refund was created in the first place.

It is very important that our colleagues understand $23 billion of outlays are going to help people who do not pay income tax in the low- income levels of our society.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Half of the cost of this bill is child credit, which has an income limit. High-income people do not qualify. So I want to make sure that is on the record after my colleague just spoke.

My colleague is right, though, that low-income families do need help, and that is just exactly what this conference report does. It provides $23 billion in outlays. In other words, low-income families who pay no income taxes at all will receive an additional $23 billion from the government under this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just as I listened carefully, I thought I understood that the Republicans since being in the control of the majority have brought about a third of the country's debt in policy decisions. I guess that would mean two-thirds of the debt would be borne by the Democratic minority party.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It just is something, I would almost like to look at that particular time transcript before 1994, when I think of the failed liberal spending policies of the previous majority; but we are here today and we have to reflect that in the 21st century we have faced 9/11, a recession, corporate scandal, reinvestment into the types of things that we have had to do in order to get the economy moving again, create jobs, open opportunity, but also to make sure that we are moving again and moving strong on homeland security and our national defense, which was all but beaten up pretty well in the nineties.

As we move forward, we have also done it with the aspect of a President outlining in this budget, which I hope this Congress, both sides of the aisle, might hold the line on the spending and cuts so that we can achieve the deficit reduction by cutting it in half over 5 years as the President outlined, and then how the House Republican majority put forth in its budget this year as well, the plan to do that.

But I will also say that while I have enjoyed listening to comments from the sidelines about the aspect of tax cuts or how to help middle- class Americans not see a tax increase or low-income Americans not see a tax increase or expanding $23 billion of outlays to low-income Americans who would be benefited by this legislation today, I have not seen any plan that is even on the table from the other side of the aisle that will make the tough choices we have with this legislation and the underlying bill or they have a proposal of raising taxes or cutting programs, some other solution than this.

But I do know this, Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues vote ``no'' on this, they are voting to raise middle America and the low-income families of this country's taxes, and if my colleagues vote ``yes'' for this rule, and they vote ``yes'' for the underlying legislation, they are going to keep millions of Americans from having to pay more in taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and in my closing remarks, I just want to remind my colleagues that this rule gives us the opportunity to have the debate on the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004. It extends family tax provisions through 2010, it provides assistance to military families in combat zones, it provides and extends relief from the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, through 2005, it creates a uniform definition of a child for tax purposes, and it extends 23 expiring tax provisions that end this year unless they are authorized in extension.

Mr. Speaker, a ``yes'' vote today seizes on the momentum we have created towards a strong economy and sends a clear message that this Congress supports putting real dollars back where they belong, in the hands of hardworking men and women. A ``no'' vote simply prevents this needed relief from becoming a reality and denies our constituents the assistance they have earned. In other words, will provide a tax increase on them if this bill is not passed.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the rule and the underlying conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I was incorrect when I mentioned in my opening remarks that the conference report included a provision suspending tax-exempt status of designated terrorist organizations. While it was included in an earlier version of the bill, that provision has already been signed into law under the Military Family Tax Relief Act and it was therefore unnecessary to include it in the Working Families Tax Relief Act.

The text of the amendment previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 794, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to end certain abusive tax practices, to provide tax relief and simplification, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the conference report for H.R. 1308, the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004. It is, I think, a significant and timely agreement. It will prevent tax increases on millions of Americans and their families. We will renew the current law tax extenders like the R and E tax credit and take a major step towards simplifying the Tax Code by implementing the uniform definition of a child provision supported by the administration, the Senate and the House. This conference report builds upon the President's 2001 and 2003 tax relief initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York once again has painted primarily a conspiracy that this was done somehow in a clandestine way. What I really want to do is make people understand that on the conference there were five Senators, three Republicans, two Democrats; and from the House there were three House Members, two Republicans, one Democrat. This provision was voted seven ayes and one no. It should not take you much time to figure out who the ``no'' was.

You also need to know that the Senator from Arkansas, Ms. Blanche Lincoln, had she had her way, based upon the amendments she offered to the conference committee which were not accepted, would have raised the price of this bill by almost $100 billion. For those people, those families, those struggling lower income people who the gentleman from New York describes as though they are getting nothing out of this bill, it is just a total cliche to say this is another tax cut for the rich as it involves $23 billion in outlays for those very same people that the gentleman from New York says were left out of the bill.

It was a bipartisan agreement. We were able to hold down the exuberance of the Democrats in the Senate. I know I am not supposed to mention the Senate, but I want everybody to remember it was the other body that would have

had this bill $100 billion higher. It is not because of the fiscal restraint on the part of the majority in putting this package together.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, if we are trying to draw a line between Democrats and Republicans, then I think we really ought to understand that prior to the 2001 tax bill, the provision that my friend from California is getting exorcised over, allowed that refundability only for families with three or more children. That is how generous they were. President Bush, the Republican House and a Republican Senate extended that provision to all families.

They were in power for 40 years and thought it was appropriate and fair to provide refundability only to families with three or more children. We said that did not make sense. We said it should be provided to all families. Yet you just heard the diatribe about what we do or do not do. That is actually what we did.

In addition to that, it just seems to me that a Senator from Arkansas and a Senator from Montana would differ with the gentleman from California about their party affiliation. All of the Senators, Democrat and Republican, supported the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the chair of the Subcommittee on Health.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, that the statement that the minority from the Senate offered offsets for the provisions that they offered simply is not true. They did not offer offsets. There were provisions that were offered that did not cover it. There were offers for particular portions of the bill, and there were offers to simply cut the bill in the tax credit areas to cover the cost of the new items added, and on the largest amendment offered by the minority, there was not coverage for the cost.

So the gentleman's statement that they provided offsets for the entire bill, including the amendments that they offered, if that was the intent of the gentleman's statement, simply is not accurate.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman's statement, and that was with respect to the underlying bill, but there were amendments offered which were not offset. The gentleman indicated that yes, there were increases offered, but offsets were provided as well. That statement simply is not factual.

Certainly, the gentleman from New York, who voted against the bill, provided a method which would take money away from individuals, increase their taxes, to distribute their income taxes, to distribute money to people who do not pay income taxes, but that was not on the portions that were offered by the Senators on the amendments that they offered.

I will certainly concede the underlying bill was covered by making people pay more in income tax so money could be distributed to those who do not pay income tax, but the statement that all of the amendments that were offered that increased the cost were offset is simply not a factual statement. That is the only point.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland also knows that, under the United States Constitution, the purse strings are controlled by Congress under article I, not the President under article II. The reason we were able to balance the budget after all of those years was that, notwithstanding the fact that the Democrats captured the White House, which does not control the purse strings, the Republicans captured the Congress, House and Senate. Those who control the purse strings control the spending. The budget was balanced because of a Republican Congress, not a Democrat President.

I would also have to tell my friends, as they review with indignation the combat pay provision included in the earned income credit, it used to be that way. But President Clinton in his administration recommended that in 2001 it be dropped. We accepted the Clinton

administration recommendation, and it was dropped. We are now reinstating it. And what people need to understand is, the reason President Clinton asked us to drop it is because it was just too complex. We have figured out a way, through election, to resolve that problem. Yet, when people voted to remove it, we did not hear all of the criticism. When we decide to put it back in, in an effective way, we get criticized. It just is interesting, the process here. Even when we are trying to help people in need, we get criticized.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, ``crash course to abomination?'' I mean, I understand getting carried away with rhetoric, and I agree we have to be concerned when the Federal Government spends more than it takes in. We did not do that during World War II because it was a time during which we needed to win the war. We are in the wartime situation. Prior to getting into that wartime situation, we were in surplus.

``Crash course to abomination?'' The gentleman ran off some numbers about how big the current national deficit is, or the debt. This economy earns more than $11 trillion a year. If you made an analogy to a family, the entire deficit is less than what the family makes in earnings in a year. That does not even begin to examine the assets that the family holds, usually equity in a home. Begin thinking about all the physical assets that the society owns through the government.

Do we need to worry about debt? Yes. You worry about it most often as a personal relationship to your income or productivity for countries. Today, that debt is about 3.8 percent. Back in the 1980s and 1990s when the gentleman's party was in control, it went over 6 percent. We were better than two-thirds of that percentage when the gentleman's party was in power. I didn't hear ``crash course to abomination'' then.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that you need to have a debt that is manageable. The best way to view the debt is not in the absolute numbers, but in a percentage of your ability to pay. Today that debt is about 3.8 percent. In the recent past it has been as high as 6. Do we need to be concerned about it? Yes.

Chairman Greenspan has said repeatedly in front of congressional committees, the way you control a growing debt is to reduce spending. That is the long-term procedure for getting imbalance back into balance.

The other thing that you need to remember is the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) said that when we cut people's taxes, we just throw the money away. If you ever wanted to get a mental set of how people approach the revenues raised by government it is that when we cut taxes, we gave people back their own money. When they look at what we did, giving people back their own money, they see it as throwing money away.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am pleased that the gentleman from California has announced apparently on behalf of the gentleman from New York that he has Presidential aspirations. What I said was that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) voted ``no'' on the conference report. The gentleman from California stood up and said, lest there be any misunderstanding, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) proposes to vote ``yes'' on the measure, and so it is pretty obvious he has got Presidential ambitions.

The point is he voted ``no'' before he voted ``yes.'' Perhaps my colleague should have said the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) will do the usual.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I have several speakers, but the Speaker announced the time differential.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a very valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for a brief period of rationality.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is often said that talk is cheap. I do hope, as we close this debate, that people listen to what people have said, but, more importantly, watch what they do when they vote. It has been announced that the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means voted ``no'' in conference and plans to vote ``yes'' on the floor.

We have heard a number of people criticize this bill. I would suggest that you watch their vote. What they say does not necessarily reflect what they are going to do. One is rhetoric, the other is voting.

Please vote ``yes'' on the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record at this point an article from the Boston Globe entitled ``Sticking it to working families,'' that shows how this Congress is raising taxes on 4 million low-income families which support 9 million children.

[From the Boston Globe, Sept. 21, 2004]

Sticking it to Working Families

(By Thomas Oliphant)

Washington.--Only in George Bush's privileged America could

the following outrage occur:

Despite the president's supposed theological objection to

tax increases, that is exactly what about 4 million families

with roughly 9 million children are about to experience, with

Bush's cynical support.

The outrage is actually worse, because the shiv is about to

be stuck in these hand-working families under the guise of an

effort to help them.

Congress is about to pass a catch-all measure allegedly

designed to deal with several

problems affecting middle-income and lower-income working

families arising from the tax cuts of recent years. The

problems are a graphic illustration of how shoddy legislation

written by people who mostly focus on big-shot lobbyists can

cause ordinary Americans to plummet through the cracks. At

issue is the child tax credit--which first appeared in tax

law in the late 1990s in a budget deal between the Clinton

administration and the Republican Congress. This provision

permits a deduction from income taxes due for each child

under the age of 17 in a household. In 2001, the value of the

credit was set to gradually increase to $1,000 per child, but

in the package of additional tax cuts enacted two years

later, the phase-in was eliminated and the full, $1,000

figure was made immediately effective.

The problem arises because parts of the law governing the

child tax credit are ``indexed'' to remove the effects of

inflation and parts are not. The value of the credit itself,

for example, is not indexed; neither are the income amounts

above which the value of the credit begins to phase out

($75,000 for a head of household, $110,000 for a married

couple).

On the other hand, the income thresholds above which a

working person can claim a ``refundable'' child tax credit--a

check from the government if income tax liability is so low

to begin with that the person would not get his full credit--

are indexed for inflation. The original legislation permitted

a refundable child tax credit for families worth up to 10

percent of their earnings above $10,000. That indexed

earnings amount is now $10,750.

And there's the rub. An analysis by the Urban Institute and

the University of Wisconsin offers the example of a married

couple with two children who work at the federal minimum wage

of a puny $5.15 an hour. Three years ago, their income of

$20,6000 would have produced a child tax credit refund of

$1,060. With a higher threshold two years later, the credit's

value drops 5 percent to $1,010.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. As ordinary

Americans know too well, incomes downscale in the United

States have been worse than stagnant in this decade. Not only

has the minimum wage not budged in seven years, but family

incomes above that have also suffered severely since 2000,

and the suffering has been proportionately greater the lower

you go on the income scale.

Moreover, this decline in earnings (even before inflation

in cases like workers with less than a high school education

or single parents) has been accompanied by large increases in

the cost of necessities--including everything from gasoline

to health insurance for those low-income workers lucky enough

to have any. In the expert analysis--Leonard Burman of the

Urban Institute and John Karl Scholz of the University of

Wisconsin--a single parent who got a $109 credit in 2001

would have received nothing last year even though her

earnings fell.

Looking ahead to next year and beyond, it is helpful that

the refund rate will rise to 15 from 10 percent, but it will

largely ignore the working families with the lowest incomes.

As the analysis sums up: ``The higher phase-in rate will do

nothing to abate the underlying problem that arises from

stagnant income growth at the bottom of the earnings

distribution. Low-income households with earnings that grow

slower than inflation will see their child tax credit erode

in real terms every year, and at a rate that is even faster

than their decline in real earnings.''

Bush and his Republican Congress buddies could fix all this

substantially, by simply restoring the original $10,000

threshold. The cost to the government would have been $4.3

billion over five years.

The fact that they did nothing is eloquent testimony to the

status of working families in today's political culture. The

next time Bush trumpets his opposition to tax increases, John

Kerry should say something about the 4 million families Bush

prefers not to count.

Mr. Speaker, low- and middle-income Americans need help. They need help paying for college, health care, and things that every family needs. When I heard the House is going to do this, I thought, oh, boy, I better get my rubber stamp and get out and help the President do it. It sounded like a good idea. The middle class has been pummeled in the last years.

Between 1979 and the year 2000, the income of the top 5 percent in this country has increased 200 percent. During the same period, the income of the middle class grew by 12 percent, and low-income families have seen their income actually drop. Roughly during the same period, the top 5 percent saw their income tax rates sliced in half and enjoyed a precipitous decline in taxation of their investment income. Meanwhile, Social Security and Medicare taxes, a burden carried primarily by the low- and middle-class taxpayers, grew 82 percent faster than their incomes did.

Mr. Speaker, when President Bush came in, income inequality got worse. The Bush tax cuts increased the after-tax income of the top 5 percent by 8 percent, while our middle class watched their incomes decline during the same period.

We have to do something to help the middle class; but after reading this bill, I learned that my colleagues are asking us to play charades today.

This bill gives the average middle-class household $169 of tax relief, but guess what, it gives the top 5 percent $2,000 worth of tax cuts. So for every dollar that my colleagues provide in tax relief to the middle income, they provide $10 additional for the top 5 percent of income earners, which happens to include ourselves. Where is the fairness? Where are our priorities if we vote for this thing?

New data from the U.S. Labor Department indicates that since Bush took office at least 670,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost to foreign trade. The CRS, the Congressional Research Service, recently estimated that 860,000 service sector jobs were shifted offshore in 2003 and 2004.

Mr. Bush went to Harvard Law School or went to business school, I guess; but I do not think it had much effect on him. He has not asked the Congress to do anything to address our competitiveness problem. He just asked us to pass tax cuts for the richest among us. Mr. Speaker, he may have gone to grad school or business school, but it really has done nothing for him.

The bill before us is going to add $146 billion to our budget deficit. Where are we going to get that from? We are going to borrow it. We are going to go to the Chinese and say, hey, we have got some notes we want to sell you; would you like to buy some of our notes? How about you, Japanese; would you like to buy some of our notes? That is where this tax cut is coming from. The gentleman says it is coming from our money; it is not. It is coming out of the Japanese if they buy the bonds.

Mr. Speaker, here we are again with one of these election-year bills. I can imagine that there are people out there watching and listening to this debate and trying to make head or tail of what is going on here today, and I intend to vote ``no.'' I was asked by one of the press, why are you going to vote ``no''? And I think that is a really good thing to discuss, because it would certainly be easy to vote ``yes.'' Everybody wants to give tax breaks.

Who in the world in an election year, 40 days before election, would not want to give away all of this money and do all of these kinds of things? But I am a child psychiatrist and one of the things you learn in raising children is that sometimes you have to say, no, we cannot do that. We cannot buy that. We cannot have that. And this Republican majority in the House and Senate really does not seem to be able to ever say no. They do not believe that you cannot spend on a credit card forever.

A credit card, I have got them in my pocket like everybody else does; you have to pay it back some time. Now, the United States right now, and the reason I do not want to borrow another $149 billion is because this is borrowed money. This is not money that anybody has paid in taxes. This is money that we are borrowing from the Chinese and the Japanese and the Saudis. We go out there selling these Treasury notes. Now, when that lapses, who controls the United States? Us or those to whom we are in debt?

If they decide to pull that money out, we go down like a rock. And you think the Chinese are really on our side? Do you think they are really friendly? You think they would not do that to us economically? We are putting ourselves in danger. The Republican majority, if they were trying to destroy this economy, could not have done a better job than they have done in the last 2 years. We thought 350 or whatever it was last year was bad. Now we have got $420 billion. That is over $700 billion that we have gone in debt, we have borrowed from the Chinese, from the Saudis, from the Europeans.

We just go and say, Please, we need money. We are the richest country in the world. We have got the biggest army and all that kind of stuff, but we need money. Please give us money so we can keep our economy going. That is not the America that I want. I think we have to have some fiscal discipline in this House, and it has to start in things like this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record the revenue effects of the bill we are discussing. Up at the top here it says ``very preliminary.'' Given what we went through with the Medicare bill and the fact that we are still now getting revised estimates on what that cost, I thought that was a very interesting thing, and I have not seen that before. So I will put that in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. It provides the House with only an hour to debate a tax package that was rushed in so fast that we are not sure the ink is dry.

The conference report before us contains many provisions that have broad bipartisan support. Members on both sides of the aisle strongly support the $1,000 per child credit and the new larger 10 percent bracket, and they provide real tax relief for working families. Additionally, the research and development tax credit, work opportunity tax credits and tax incentives for Qualified Zone Academy Bonds all have a great deal of support.

Further, we all probably can agree on the importance of the bill's alternative minimum tax relief provisions. The AMT has increasingly become a major source of headaches for middle-class taxpayers. Last year alone, 3.3 million taxpayers unwittingly found themselves subject to this onerous tax because of the 2001 tax bill. Without further congressional action, the number

of Americans who will have to deal with it will grow over 30 million by 2010. While I am pleased that the conference addresses the AMT, it is only a Band-Aid. Providing a permanent remedy to this egregious problem will be costly, but it must be done.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, there is little fault to find in what the conferees chose to include in their final tax package, except the cost, which, as I said, is very preliminary. I only hope that the conference report for the pork-laden, Christmas-tree-like corporate tax bill that this body passed in June is as reasonable.

That said, the critical question for our Members to ask about this $150 billion bill is who is going to bear the cost? Our children? Our grandchildren? Both?

The House leadership may not have qualms about putting off questions about the fiscal consequences, but, as a mother and grandmother, I certainly do. We could have paid for it by simply taking back a portion of the recent tax reductions enjoyed by taxpayers who earn over $1 million a year. Unfortunately, the majority refused to consider this approach, choosing instead to push us further into debt by $150 billion.

I do not understand this tactic. It is irresponsible and indefensible, especially given what the Congressional Budget Office told us 2 short weeks ago. The 2004 deficit will be our largest in history, $422 billion, surpassing last year's record by $47 billion. At this rate, how on earth do we ever stand a chance of bringing the budget back to balance?

We can do better, and we must do better. And I also have no confidence in what we are being told, as I have said, about the cost of the bill. In the past 4 years, my experience has certainly taught me to question the cost estimates that were provided.

Back in 2000, the majority went to great pains to deliver a package that would be scored at $350 billion, and they devised a scheme of phase-ins and phase-outs to arrive at that number. Now, we know the tax cuts have an actual cost of about $620 billion, according to the administration's own office.

In addition to putting the true cost of the tax cut at nearly double the initial estimate, OMB attributed $290 billion of our deficit to the 2001 tax bill, and yet this House refuses to recognize that. Then, let me say again, there is a medicare bill. In June 2003, Congress was told the bill would cost no more than $400 billion over 10 years. Then, we learned about the coercive tactics used to arrive at that magic number and that the actual number of $134 billion more was kept from us.

Today, we understand that there is more to come and that the actual cost now of the medicare bill is $576 billion over 10 years, $176 billion more than we voted on just a few months ago. So keep your eyes open on this one, because if you blink, you may miss millions more added to the price tag.

Mr. Speaker, given the record, how can we trust the cost of this bill?

For all of these reasons and despite my support for middle-class tax cuts, I oppose this rule because we are not allowed to do anything, not only about the extraordinary cost but for the children of our soldiers who are left out of this bill completely and lose their tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert for the Record at this time the material I referred to earlier.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23SE04.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23SE04.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH23SE04.006

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

If I could say to the previous speaker, the idea of it being the people's money, obviously, all taxes are the people's money. It is also the people's debt that we are running up. They might want us to have some consideration for that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am going to be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment that directs the enrolling Clerk to add language to the conference report that pays for this bill. The previous question directs the Secretary of the Treasury to pay for the costs of the bill by rolling back part of the tax breaks of those incomes exceeding $1 million annually.

These millionaires will still receive a substantial portion of their tax cuts, but a modest rollback will offset the cost of this bill for middle-income American families.

Mr. Speaker, I think many Members of this body want to see the tax breaks in this bill extended. I know I do, particularly the child tax credit. However, many of us are very concerned about the legislation's substantial price tag, and I think this is a fair and reasonable way to address that cost.

I want to stress that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the conference report for the tax bill. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to amend the rule to make the changes necessary for this conference report to pay for these tax cuts, and not increase our already-bloated and record-breaking deficit. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will not allow the changes to be made and will drive up our debt to the tune of $146 billion. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can fix this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment I referred to earlier be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I will not be sarcastic. I might be somewhat morally indignant. And I really think it is up to individual Members how they choose to vote on this bill. But I do think the bill clearly defines the Republican Party and it clearly defines the difference, and it defines compassion and conservatism as the Republicans understand it.

One might say there is some fascism in the bill and there is some socialism. That is okay too. But let us look at what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) talked about earlier.

4.3 million families in this bill, because of the Republican refusal to freeze the $10,000 cap on income, 4.3 million families below $10,750 a year will have a tax increase. That means 9.2 million children living in those families will have less money while their parents' income has stayed the same or gone up slightly. To fix that would cost $4.3 billion. There is not enough compassion on the Republican side of the aisle to find $4.3 billion over 5 years to help those 9 million of the poorest children in this country.

That is your Republican compassion. That is indecent, it is un- Christian and it is immoral.

Now, this same Republican Party has countenanced a Tax Code on the other side. Eighty-two of the Fortune 500 companies, the most profitable companies in the country, paid no taxes over 3 years, and those 82 companies received $12.6 billion in refunds. So the Republicans are willing to give 82 rich, biggest corporations $12.6 billion.

That is conservatism. But they do not have the compassion to let $4.3 billion be spent on the 9 million poorest children. There you have it. The Republicans will help 82 of the richest corporations with three times as much money as it would take to have helped the 9 million poorest children in this country.

So whatever you vote on this bill, it does not make any difference, but know the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just like to note, I have had this lesson in civics, and the gentleman is correct, the Congress does dispose. And in the tenure of the current chair of the Committee on Ways and Means, he has disposed of a $5.6 trillion surplus, and he now has us a $3 trillion deficit. He is throwing away $8 trillion, in his Republican leadership of the Committee on Ways and Means, and that is not so bad.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a gentleman who has seen the inside of a military uniform.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I guess that there are people in the hall who are hearing things. Maybe they have receptors in their teeth. I heard no chuckles, but there are people who do get messages that are from strange sources; and they are certainly not in this hall.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for whom the complexities of a tax credit for the military would not exceed his intellect, as it obviously does the leader at the White House and the leader of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to speak on behalf of the gentleman from New York (Ranking Member Rangel).

I think somebody on the majority side misinterpreted the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel) position. I am aware that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) intends to vote for this bill. He is unhappy with the fact that it is not paid for and that it mistreats our military and our very lowest income people, but he does intend to vote for it. I think to suggest that he is opposing the bill is a misstatement of his position, and he has asked me to set the record straight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It was the gentleman from Arizona, not the gentleman from California, who suggested that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) opposed the bill, and that was the misunderstanding that I wanted to correct. The chairman is correct, he did not suggest that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) was not in favor of the bill, and that was my point, to set that part of it straight.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman ready to close?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear, or at least I might respond, that the Presidential candidate that I am going to support never ducked out of his military duty or had his daddy buy him a soft berth to avoid combat.

We are talking now about a tax bill that I suspect will pass comfortably in the next few minutes, but I think it is important again to remember that the most vulnerable of our citizens are being disadvantaged. And I am talking about those in the military.

I might add that when President Clinton did the tax credit for the military change, we had no military in Iraq.

We also are disadvantaged, hurting, raising the taxes, if you will, on 9 million of the poorest children. On the one hand, we are giving $14 billion worth of tax breaks to corporations, when it would have only taken $4 billion of that to help the 9 million poorest children.

I do not see how any Christian or anybody with any compassion can square their conscience, can go home to dinner tonight and tell their family or their children, I just voted to harm 9 million of the poorest children in this country and I gave away $14 billion to the richest corporations in this country. That does not wash with compassion. That is underhanded and immoral and obscene, and it is part of this bill, written by the Republican chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. And that is a fact.

There is no excuse for continuing to raise the deficit, which has been done under the leadership of the current Committee on Ways and Means, so that we have gone from a $5 trillion surplus to a $3 trillion debt. That is $8 trillion thrown away by the Republican leadership of the Committee on Ways and Means and this House, and countenanced and supported by the White House.

It is a shame that our leadership in the White House is so intellectually challenged that it cannot understand a tax credit. That in itself ought to be reason enough to change that leadership. Because by lacking the intellectual capability of understanding the Tax Code, they are harming our military.

Vote as you will, but understand the difference, Mr. Speaker, between Republican compassion and conservative giveaways to the very rich.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.